Scientists Feel Stifled by Bush Administration

[missy]

I agree that scientist SHOULD be a big part of any legislation that has scientific ramifications. And that one should look at ALL the possible outcomes before passing policy.

Going back to Rachel Carson. We banned DDT, but there wasn't a viable alternative insecticide available when we did. How many humans have suffered / died since the ban because of not having a viable way to control mosquito population? Would the bird population have survived if we had waited until we had a viable alternative? I have no idea of the answers, but I think they are important questions.

As to climate, global warming, etc.... no, we can of course take measures to lower particulates. But, do we do so and increase the amount of H2SO4 in the atmosphere? What are the ramifications of that? What about the ice age theories?

Science policy cannot be made in a vacuum. There is cause and effect for EVERY action (remember the conservation of energy?). And sometimes it take really thinking "out of the box" to find helpful answers, and we can only do so with the knowledge we have at this time.

Sometimes the best we can do is the lesser of two evils.


Missy

[Wombat]

I think that it is wise of governments to react slowly to such theories.

They do tend to react slowly when the interests of big business are at risk but not when the interests of their consituents are at risk. How much more proof is needed of a link between smoking and cancer? Surely the dangers of asbestos were known, beyond reasonable doubt, long before the industry was reined in. I don't think criminal charges were ever even contemplated for those who knowingly suppressed the evidence.

On the other hand, genetically modified food was on the market before the general public even knew about it. Caution doesn't seem to be all that popular in connection with stem-cell research.

I don't think all these cases are exactly parallel, but I do think that there is a clear tendency to protect business rather than the vulnerable individual, even though the 'individual' is collectively all of us, now and into the future. Kyoto is in line with this tendency, or so it seems to me.

[ErikT]

The conclusion that the earth is slightly warming seems to be substantiated (mostly). The cause is in question. As a scientist, I think that you would appreciate the difference.

I'm not saying that we should do nothing. Hence my moderate tone.

As for your article, you did read it, right? I got to the end and was still looking for a fact. I might like to know who, what's being ignored, who was pressured. Who's budget was on the line. Are they mad because they are loosing their bread and butter or are they mad because it will negatively effect the world. Lot's of people are going to loose their government funding in the new budget. Everyone is certain that the deficit needs to be reduced, but nobody wants it in their department. Furthermore, the AAAS http://www.aaas.org/port_policy.shtml isn't exactly a neutral party. It is an action committee designed to promote itself and it's members.

Finally, show me where Bush or his administration has said that humans have not contributed to warming. Again I go back to the Kyoto accord. Their reason for not signing was because it was a bad accord, not because it has no merit.

Here's what the administration feels about the environment (according to them):

The EPA has released important new information about the unprecedented health and environmental benefits of the Clear Skies initiative that President Bush proposed in February. The President will work with Congress to strengthen the Clean Air Act through the passage of Clear Skies so we can improve air quality for all Americans.

Clear Skies will clean our skies, bring greater health to our citizens, and encourage environmentally responsible development in America and around the world.
The Clear Skies initiative will reduce air pollution from power plants by 70 percent while using a market-based system to keep electricity prices affordable for hardworking Americans. .
Cuts power plant emissions of the three worst air pollutants -- nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.
The most significant step America has ever taken to address this problem.
Clear Skies will bring Americans much cleaner air, and healthier forests, lakes, and estuaries.
Many cities and towns will meet air quality standards for the first time in years.
The problem of acid rain will be virtually eliminated, which affects many lakes and forests in the Northeast.
Urban smog will be dramatically reduced and nitrogen and mercury deposition.
Protects Americans from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
Commits America to an aggressive strategy to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years.
The initiative also supports vital climate change research and ensures that America's workers and citizens of the developing world are not unfairly penalized.

They also say this about energy:

The President is committed to increasing the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the nation’s industrial and power facilities. His improvements to the New Source Review (NSR) regulations will provide increased flexibility and ensure that air pollution will not be increased when plants maintain and replace worn-out equipment.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s new annual air quality trends report shows that air quality in America continues to steadily improve with total emissions cut by 48 percent since 1970.

President Bush is implementing new, more stringent health-based air quality standards controlling smog and small soot particles. New diesel regulations, the President’s Clear Skies legislation (which seeks to cut power plant pollution by 70 percent using a proven market-based program), and improvements to the NSR program will help states meet those standards, even as we work to preserve and grow jobs throughout the Nation.

Sure, these are laden with one sided political propaganda, but it doesn't sound to me like they are saying that nothing is happening.

I'm not saying that America is doing enough to combat pollution. I'm not saying that we're spending enough on research. I am saying that your article is just as skewed as the above quotes and that the reality is likely somewhere in between.

Erik

[TooTs]

The Earth is definitely going to have a major breakdown.

Whether it global warming, or a big rock falling from space, or Yellow Stone going bang, won't make much difference.

Even if we avoid all of those (which is highly unlikely), eventually the magnetic poles of this planet will reverse polarity and cause a mass extiction of both plant and animal species.

So why worry?

Of all the above, i would say Yellow Stone is the biggest current threat. When that goes bang it'll pump out more crap into the atmosphere in one day than humans have in the last century.

[ErikT]

On the other hand, genetically modified food was on the market before the general public even knew about it. Caution doesn't seem to be all that popular in connection with stem-cell research.

The fact that they make a mistake in one area does not validate mistakes made in others. I feel, as it appears that you do, that the two areas that you cite should also have been scrutinized in a more methodical way.

[brewerpaul]

Susan - do some searching on WHY Christine Whitman stepped down as head of the EPA so quickly in Mr. Bush's first administration. She was one of the reasons I felt "ok" voting for Bush the first time around (he had already said he would appoint her while he was campaigning).

Missy

This seems to be a popular Bush tactic: put good, honorable people in positions of power-- especially if you can use their public image to push your adgenda through. Then, if they don't agree with you, marginalize them to the point where they resign:AFTER your policies are a done deal. Look at Colin Powell...

[Wombat]

On the other hand, genetically modified food was on the market before the general public even knew about it. Caution doesn't seem to be all that popular in connection with stem-cell research.

The fact that they make a mistake in one area does not validate mistakes made in others. I feel, as it appears that you do, that the two areas that you cite should also have been scrutinized in a more methodical way.

Well, I think genetic modification should have been scrutinised much more carefully. These organisms are rather like exotics. 9 out of 10 will simply die out if left to fight it out with other species. But every so often you get something like the rabbit or the cane toad in Australia which simply has devestating effects on the environment. Unlike artificial selective breeding of the traditional kind, this sort of tampering doesn't allow us to see at each stage where things are going.

Stem cell research is controversial for other reasons. I don't think it's dangerous in anything like the same way. Stem cell therapy might be dangerous if performed prematurely.

In the case of tobacco and asbestos, I don't regard these as mistakes. I regard the failure of governments to act sooner as criminal.

When to act isn't a function simply of how well-established the science is but also of the dangers of not taking it seriously if it turns out right.

Risk analysis is not a very well-developed area of study. My own studies in this area suggest that we react very differently to different kinds of risk. Collectively, our attitudes don't look consistent or rational to me, but I can't pretend I've got to teh bottom of it.

[dwinterfield]

Erik and others

here's EPA's take on global climate change. Remember this is the Bush administration's EPA.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarmi ... index.html

About Kyoto. One of the curious things about it is that the agreement was largely negotiated by US manufacturers. The Clinton Administration decided that if US businesses were going to have to live with whatever was in the Kyoto agreement, it would be best they participated in the negotiation. So they were invted to be part of the delgation and they got most of what they wanted. The US delegation played a key role in shaping the agreement in 1997.

Here's Intel on Kyoto

http://www.intel.com/intel/other/ehs/pr ... limate.htm

My only point is the the Administration position may not represent its own environmental professionals or most US business.

[spittin_in_the_wind]

I find it interesting that not too many years ago we were all going to die in the next great ice age. I'm just saying that it's not crazy to doubt a scientific THEORY, particulary those based upon models. I've seen too many serious theories "revised" or entirely dropped within 20 years (or less) of their proposals.

I think that it is wise of governments to react slowly to such theories.
Erik

Just to clarify, the things you are talking about are hypotheses. Gravitation is a theory; so is electromagnetism and the laws of motion. So is the sun-centered solar system and photosynthesis.

To quote from http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. This definition of a theory is in sharp contrast to colloquial usage, where people say something is “just a theory,” thereby intending to imply a great deal of uncertainty.

and

Hypothesis:
This is a tentative answer to the question: a testable explanation for what was observed. The scientist tries to explain what caused what was observed.

Just to clarify! Global warming is well on its way to becoming a theory as more and more data are brought forward to support it. Perhaps it's not quite there yet, but it is getting close. Also, we have to remember that scientific papers which propose to answer a hypothesis have to undergo a very rigorous peer review process. Believe me, scientists are the most strict critics of their peers (and even their compatriots in their own labs--just come and sit in on one of our lab meetings sometime! :roll:) and will nitpick until the cows come home. For a paper to pass peer review in a good scientific journal, it has to have gotten through, usually, three reviewers. These reviewers are often competitors of the author and are motivated to reject if there is any doubt at all about the data.

Robin

[missy]

Robin - and it often takes up to 2 years to get that paper published, during which time all your competitors are ALSO working on the same thing.

Missy

[ErikT]

In the case of tobacco and asbestos, I don't regard these as mistakes. I regard the failure of governments to act sooner as criminal.

The asbestos scare is a perfect example of the danger of taking poor science and applying it liberally (or perhaps taking good science and applying it incorrectly). And yet it is clear that you believe that asbestos is particularly dangerous. Even so far as calling it criminal.

First, asbestos is a rock. While there is friable asbestos out there, it represents such a small amount that the billions of dollars spent on abatement has made it the biggest snipe hunt ever. Furthermore, when actually abating legitamately friable asbestos, the airborn particulate count becomes higher than if it had simply been left alone. The truth is that about 90-95% of asbestos works just fine as an in place material. There are dangers in the manufacture and constant exposure to dust during manufacture or maintenance, but there is in the use of all silicates (ie Rocks) once they become airborn.

What the legislation has done is create a wonderful high paying job classifaction (asbestos abatement) that really has little actual results - though it has made a number of people rich. And all because someone cried fire.

You can read more here: http://www.asbestos-institute.ca/presskit/press_5.html
And here: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/

Erik

[ErikT]

Just to clarify, the things you are talking about are hypotheses.

In the minds of the general public, Global warming - and most importantly its cause - is WELL past hypotheses stage. And that's what concerns me.

Erik

[susnfx]

Yes, Erik, I did read the article. I’m offended by your sarcastic question.

I wouldn’t necessarily write off those being cited in the article: One of those quoted, Neal Lane of Rice University, is a former director of the National Science Foundation (an independent federal agency created by Congress). He said "we don't really have a policy right now to deal with what everybody agrees is a serious problem." Among scientists, said Lane, "there is quite a consensus in place that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for a considerable part of that" through the burning of fossil fuels. And the science is clear, he said, that without action to control fossil fuel use, the warming will get worse and there will be climate events that "our species has not experienced before."

Budgets: As the article states, budgets for R&D are being cut substantially. “National Science Foundation funds for graduate students and for kindergarten through high school education have been slashed. NASA has gotten a budget boost, but most of the new money will be going to the space shuttle, space station and Bush's plan to explore the moon and Mars.” Of course nobody wants their budget slashed, but to see education being passed over for exploration of the moon and Mars? Hard to swallow.

Clear Skies: A study/report by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the Clear Skies legislation would actually allow plants to emit more pollution: Under the existing law's (Clean Air Act) "new source review" requirement, power plants must install modern pollution controls whenever they make changes that otherwise would boost emissions significantly. The administration's bill would eliminate this requirement and allow any plant to increase its emissions up to a permissively set cap -- or even above the cap -- provided the plant purchased credits from cleaner facilities. Critics note that communities near the plants that are the dirtiest and cheapest to run would be left without the current protection from massive increases in the pollution that triggers asthma attacks and even more serious illnesses.

I’ve got too much to do this afternoon to find the information I’ve got on the Bush administration’s denial or downplaying that humans are adding to global warming….tonight I’ll do some checking.

Susan

[ErikT]

Yes, Erik, I did read the article. I’m offended by your sarcastic question.

I'm sorry, Susan. I should not have been sarcastic in such a volatile topic.

Erik

[spittin_in_the_wind]

Robin - and it often takes up to 2 years to get that paper published, during which time all your competitors are ALSO working on the same thing.

Missy

Uh...yeah...BTDT!! In fact we just recently had a paper that took well over a year in all its various incarnations to get published! What a pain in the proverbial!

Robin